IN CASE OF STOCK TRANSFER, NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER SECTION 129 IF THE VEHICLE NUMBER IS MISTAKENLY MENTIONED IN THE E-WAY BILL

Articles

IN CASE OF STOCK TRANSFER, NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER SECTION 129 IF THE VEHICLE NUMBER IS MISTAKENLY MENTIONED IN THE E-WAY BILL - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

18/05/2023

IN CASE OF STOCK TRANSFER, NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER SECTION 129 IF THE VEHICLE NUMBER IS MISTAKENLY MENTIONED IN THE E-WAY BILL - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

The petitioner before this Court is a registered dealer under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of aerated water, fruit juice based drinks etc. The dealer was making a stock transfer from its unit at Gautam Buddha Nagar, Greater NOIDA depot to a sale depot at Kuberpur, Agra.

The goods were being shifted through Truck No. HR-73/6755 which was accompanying delivery challan, e-way bill and bilty on 10.06.2018. The mobile squad on 10.06.2018 intercepted the goods and detained the vehicle in question along with the goods on the premise that in the e-way bill the vehicle number has been mentioned as UP-13T/6755.

Detention order was passed on 11.06.2018. Thereafter, a penalty order under Section 129(3) of the Act of 2017 was passed imposing a tax of Rs.1,86,834/- and penalty of the same amount, totaling Rs.3,73,668.

Against the said order, an appeal under Section 107 of the Act was preferred by the dealer before the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal-III) Commercial Tax, Agra. The appeal was dismissed vide order impugned dated 01.07.2019.

Hence, the present writ petition.

The sole controversy engaging the attention of the Court is as to whether the wrong mention of number of Vehicle No. HR- 73/6755 through which the goods were in transit and detained by the taxing authorities would be considered as a human error and will be covered under the circular No. 41/15/2018-GST dated 13.04.2018 and 49/23/2018-GST dated 21.06.2018, as the number mentioned in the e-way bill was UP-13T/6755 and the mistake is of only of HR-73 in place of U.P.-13T.

As there is no dispute to the fact that it is a case of stock transfer and there is no intention on the part of dealer to evade any tax, the minor discrepancy as to the registration of vehicle in State in the e-way bill would not attract proceedings for penalty under Section 129 and the order passed by the detaining authority as well as first appellate authority cannot be sustained. Moreover, the Department has not placed before the Court any other material so as to bring on record that there was any intention on the part of the dealer to evade tax except the wrong mention of part of registration number of the vehicle in the eway bill. The vehicle through which the goods were transported and the bilty showed the one and the same number while only there is a minor discrepancy in Part-B of the e-way bill where the description of the vehicle is entered by the dealer.

Writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.